Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFD] Automatic suspend | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:28:43 +1100 |
| |
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 16:06 -0800, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
I'm not taking a position on the merit of the wakelocks per se nor whether Rafael is right or wrong here, I haven't looked at the problem closely enough. I just want to react to this:
> The basic concept was developed long before android was a public > project.
This isn't going to bring you any good will. We don't care what was done before it was a public project. That has strictly no relevance to how it should be submitted upstream.
How long the code has been simmering internally to company X or Y or even in a public tree doesn't matter. Some times, yes, we do take something as a whole, when it makes no sense to do otherwise (a driver, a filesystem, ...).
But something like what you propose, it seems, could easily be broken down into a basic concept, on which features are added one after the other, and in this case, it's the right way to go, simply because it's easier to argue for the basic concept alone if you don't have to handle comments froms people who don't agree with aspect A B or C of the other features involved.
And if the basic concept doesn't get accepted in the first place, then the whole point is moot...
Cheers, Ben.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |